Next best exponential DAC quality level?


I recently did a shoot out of three DACs using my Hint6 + routing each of the other DACs to analog input on the Hint6:

(1) Hint6: ESS Sabre32 -- Integrated 

(2) SMSL M500: ES9038PRO D/A   ~$400 

(3) Khadas ToneBoard(v1): ESS ES9038Q2M - ~$99

I played the same song passages on Amazon Music and was able to cycle through each Hint6 input corresponding to each DAC.

The result?  Very small difference in terms of rendering.  Maybe a more open sound stage with better overall balance using the Hint6 DAC.  The Khadas was more bass / midrange pronounced w/ a more narrow soundstage.  However, I wouldn't suggest that any were head-and-shoulders "better" over the others.  In fact, they were all pretty decent with only small nuances (certainly not worth the price differences.   

I decided to keep the Khadas for my small headphone listening area. 

But it got me thinking - how much would one have to spend to realize an exponential difference in quality?  Is the Khadas that good, or is DAC technology differences more nuanced than I originally thought (meaning, we're paying 10x for only 5% better).  

 

martinman

@seanheis1 

I have just been around a long time, and as opposed to talking the talk, I have walked the walk ... but not that long. Still got another decade of work in me or so.

@dht4me 

Frequency response and phase (which I said later on). Those two incorporate bandwidth which is an inadequate descriptor. Since we are talking about DACs, somewhat in isolation, but even if we were not, it does not matter, pre-amp loads are typically 10K-100K, non-reactive, and even $10 DACs have more than enough bandwidth, phase response and drive capability, again, technically more than the Audionote.

Jung, Swenson, etc. in the field of analog electronics, linear, are so far from the best minds. Competent perhaps, but if you are using what they say to determine what you are writing, then obviously at a system level ... well they should stick to analog.

What Audionote does in there power supplies or does not, really does not matter. All that matters is results. Measurements I have seen have shown more power supply harmonics then I would expect on any modern DAC, even <$100. Insisting on simple tube based output circuits makes it pretty hard to avoid that.

 

The regulators absolutely need to have the bandwidth in digital circuits and to conflate human hearing with digital circuits is sort of disingenuous.

 

Why? Tell me why, in full detail, and please explain what sort of result, say in picoseconds of jitter will result, and how much THD/IMD will result?

With any half way proper designed DAC, the DAC is being driven by a local clock either via buffer, USB, ASRC, etc. I can get exceptionally low phase noise with just some basic sense on the power supply side. It's amazing what a resistor, a ferrite bead, and a few ceramic capacitors can do. Since I have a stable clock, now I am down to logic edge speeds, or more specific, how fast I transition through the range of uncertainty, and that is going to be a few 100 picoseconds, now power supply noise will affect that, but if I am 0.1% noise on the power supply (and I can get better) then I am down in picoseconds worst case jitter, but because the edge speed is fast, and the important transitions actually very very few in audio, the odds of a noise peak being concurrent with a critical edge are low and hence RMS jitter contribution from a half way decent power architecture will have limited impact on performance. Of course, all of this assume the DAC itself has not implemented any techniques in the analog domain to reduce jitter. Most DACs chips do. What is in the Audionote does not, so it will be more sensitive again to design implementation.

We could talk about the DAC reference, but again, it is amazing what can be done with well chosen simple parts. There is a reason why companies buy test equipment. They know if they got it right or not. Not the right sound, which is much different, but they know if there are extraneous things happening they don't want to happen.

Again, I (mostly) agree with Cinyment on the fundamentals of what they present... (above post)

but differ slightly on what I personally understand that it means to the ear, how such interacts with the ear.

Where that is folded back into the design and execution stage, for the better result. If such is possible. Results vary. It is partly a question of understanding how sensitive the ear is to odd harmonics and dealing with that as a point in emphasis.

 

what they are saying comes back to the late 90’s and early 2000’s great facinstion with giant expensive speakers with low impedance and wicked impedance curves or changes. this causes an immense amount of interactive with the power supply and overall over stressing of the given amplifier design. this lead to the idea that the amplifier for working with that given speaker was really important and how the speaker would show an amplifier to be ’weak’, in it’s unsuitability. only the best amplifier would do.

Not true. If you over stress anything you’ll get some unwanted harmonics and bad phase response, noise, distortions,etc, and this will ’color’ the result. So a bad speaker design is not the arbiter of audio quality. good and correct design working in sympathetic scenarios is good design. Poor speaker design has those ugly impedance curves that some of those giant speakers tend to have. Contrary to some thinking, it is possible to have those giant speakers have a benign impedance curve AND be of extremely revealing quality. It just takes more work, properly thought out work.

It is partly a question of understanding how sensitive the ear is to odd harmonics and dealing with that as a point in emphasis.

This is Ralph from Atmosphere’s philosophy. I definitely think it holds water with power amps….but is IMD really much of an issue with a well measuring DAC from a company like Benchmark? 
 

And do R2R NOS DACs have less IMD than well measuring DACs? And if they do have more IMD, is it masked by other harmonics?